Could Chris Ballard Have a Legacy Close to Bill Polian

[NannyMcafee]

Colts need to go at least 12-4 for several years

[JPFolks]

18 hours ago, CR91 said:

Ive bashed polian as much as the next guy, but the guy has or potentially drafted 9 HOFers

 

Jim Kelly

Bruce Smith

Thurman Thomas

Andre Reed

Peyton Manning

Edge 

Reggie

Freeney 

Mathis

 

He did not draft Marv or Marshall Faulk. That was Bill Tobin.

Of your last 4 the only sure thing is Freeny.  I think Mathis's PED suspension will have a significant effect on his chances and Reggie getting hosed late in his career by Grigson may just keep him out since there will be so many WRs coming up with the explosion of WR stats.  I think he clearly deserves to be in however.   Edge, he's another fence player, not sure which side he will fall on.  It is too bad he didn't stick around another year, but maybe if he had history would have turned out differently.  He sure wasted the end of his career in AZ.  

 

Oh and thanks for reminder on Marv and Faulk.. Tobin nailed some picks as well.  And those guys are already in the Hall.  Perhaps the fact that they were drafted with by Polian will rub off positively in the favor of the guys above.  

[JPFolks]

3 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

Colts need to go at least 12-4 for several years

I think more than several years.  Wasn't Manning the winningest regular season QB in history? I think he was (not sure how far behind Brady still is, but as the years pile up he'll obviously pass Manning, but the Per Year wins will still be in Manning's favor most likely).  

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, JPFolks said:

I think more than several years.  Wasn't Manning the winningest regular season QB in history? I think he was (not sure how far behind Brady still is, but as the years pile up he'll obviously pass Manning, but the Per Year wins will still be in Manning's favor most likely).  

Most wins by a QB = Regular Season and Playoffs:

 

Brady 237-70 (6 SB wins)

Peyton 200-92 (2 SB wins)

Favre 199-123 (1 SB win)

Brees 163-115 (1 SB win)

Elway 162-89 (2 SB wins)

 

-Top 5 winners in NFL history, Peyton is 2nd only behind Brady. Only Brady and Peyton are in the 200 win club.

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

You are wrong on every account in your opening thought!

 

Hooker was projected to go HIGHER than 15 and Wilson was rated a borderline 1st Rounder. They were drafted right where they should have been. 

 

Hooker was having an incredible DROY type season until the cheap shot he took against the Jags that cost him the 2nd half of the season. He played solid last year considering he was still healing AND very few teams dared throwing to his side which stats bear that out.

 

Wilson has taken a bit of time to percolate, but, when he has played and started turning it on that lock down corner started to emerge last year and once again the stats are there to prove it.

 

Basham plays for the Jets in their 3-4 defense. Still in the league.

 

Basham played in 9 games as a rookie with the Panthers and is now a Steeler. Still in the league.

 

Hairston had a great rookie season per stats and took a step back last year while a certain Kenny Moore took a monumental leap and TOOK the nickel back spot and never giving Hairston a chance. Hairston may lose out to Collins and/or Rock Ya-Sin this year but he'll be claimed quickly and be a solid contributor elsewhere.

 

Mack is a rotational back? Seriously? Where were you when he finished the season as a top 5 back when was healthy? From like week 6 thru 17? Did we not watch the same games? Sheesh....

 

Grover Stewart has been a solid rotational piece and due an increase in minutes this year as a 4th rounder in 2017 from tiny Albany. Solid pick.

 

Oh, what about our final pick that year? The 5th rounder who is the starting MLB and racked up 100+ tackles last year? He's not too shabby either. Anthony Walker Jr......

 

8 picks.

4 Starters.

2 Depth Players.

2 With other teams.

 

Every one of them still in the league.

 

50% Starters is NOT an ordinary draft.

 

[DougDew]

10 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

 

Doug.......   

 

I'm going to apologize in advance...    sincerely, I'm sorry for what I'm about to write.   Because if you read this full post,  you're going to be convinced that I not only hate your guts,  but that I want you to burn in Hell for all eternity and beyond if possible.    I give you my word,  I don't hate you,  nor do I wish you to get burnt to a crisp in the Home of the Devil.

 

But this is the post is one of the worst things you've ever written.   Top to bottom, just awful.   Look,  as a wise man once said,  you're entitled to your own opinion,  but you're not entitled to your own facts.     And there are no known facts that support this post of yours.   It's entirely false  and full of viewpoints that are just not supported by anything.

Look how much is in bold.    All of that is a big, GIGANTIC steaming pile of WRONG!

 

First, it should be noted that in NFL circles,  drafts are not judged until after year 3,  and Ballard is just starting year 3.

 

As far as I know,  you're the only person who thinks Hooker and Wilson were "over drafted."

Hooker was in everyone's top-10.   It's great that he fell to us,  but beyond the fact that since Day One you didn't like the pick,  your view of Hooker is also impacted because you didn't think his injury was all that bad, (wrong) and you don't understand how to judge the type of ability and skill set that he brings to the defense.   So you recently dismissed his high PFF grade and ranking in 2018.   This despite the fact that he played clearly not 100% after his worse-than-you-thought injury.   All stories this year that mention Hooker mention that he's healthy this year.

 

As for Wilson...   Not only did he grade out really well in the 2nd half of last season,  but I read in the last 7-10 days,  that Wilson,  now going into his third year, is actually YOUNGER than Rock Ya-Sin.  If that doesn't register,  I'll put it another way,   Rock, a rookie,  is actually OLDER than Wilson going into his third year.    That's how young Wilson was when we took him.   The youngest player in the '17 draft.   It's taken him time to grow-up.   But youth is a plus,  not a minus.   Stories here on Colts.com have also noted that Wilson is actually DOWN 20 pounds this off-season.   And has roughly cut his body fat in half.   From roughly 14 percent to roughly 7 percent.   Ballard heaps praise on him whenever given the chance.   

 

Both Hooker and Wilson either went after they were projected or roughly about where they projected.    But over-drafted?    That's your unique viewpoint.

 

In the NFL world,  a good/decent draft is getting three starters out of the draft.   Look at this draft again.   Hooker,  Wilson, Mack,  Walker.    And when Hairston gets cut,  I'm here to tell you here and now that he's NOT out of the NFL as you predict.    He'll be claimed by another NFL team.    Do you remember during Free Agency, we brought in a player,  a DB, named Kentrell Brice?    We worked him out and didn't sign him.   Well,  PFF crushed him.   He had a super low grade from them.   People here were upset simply because we brought him in for a look-see and kicked the tires.   Some here acted as if they were deeply offended.

 

What happened to Brice?  He was signed by Tampa and I saw a story this week that says he might just START for them.   Hairston had a good rookie year and a disappointing second year due somewhat to injury.   And based on just that you're ready to proclaim he'll be out of the NFL?    Nonsense.

 

Continuing.....

 

Leonard and Nelson are the only two who could start for any other team?    Sorry,  but this is your Ballard-HATE speaking.    And please spare me the denial.    Only someone who either doesn't know football or just HATES someone's guts would make such a silly claim.   Braden Smith?   Hooker?    Wilson?   Mack?    Walker?       You can't be serious?     No other teams would want those guys to start for them?     You're coming from a very dark place to even suggest this.

 

You wouldn't consider anything Ballard has done in his first two drafts exceptional?    Sorry,  but that's what kids today call.....   an EPIC FAIL!!     Feel free to name another draft that had two players the caliber of Nelson and Leonard?   Did you not see that those two plus Smith landed on the NFL all-under-25 teams?    3 players.   From the same draft.    And you didn't think that's exceptional?    Dear God,  where does this come from?

 

Doug.....     Bill Belichick may not be a fantastic drafter....    but he's somehow managed to win 6 super bowls.     Where do you think he gets those players?     It's not just great coaching.   Is he a great drafter?   That's in the eye of the beholder.   But he knows how to trade UP and trade DOWN better than most.   And he accumlates extra picks better than most.   And he knows how to work the extra compensatory picks better than anyone.    But finding guys that "fit his system" is in part what makes BB a very good drafter.   He knows the talent that fits what he wants.   Interestingly, this sounds like something very similar to Chris Ballard.   He's got certain qualities that he wants,  and he tries to find those players.

 

I'm sorry this is such a long, negative rant.   But there was so much to comment on.    This kind of post surfaces from you once or twice a year.    It does not serve you well.    This one will likely come back to haunt you.   To be quoted by others against you.   Again,  you're entitled to your own unique views,  but at least have something to back it up with.    The facts,  the NFL standards are hard against you. 

 

This is the kind of post that makes me say from time to time....    

 

You live in Dew-ville.   Population 1.     Sorry.

 

Relative to Polian, which is the topic of the thread, Ballard benefited from already having his franchise QB on the roster.  Polian had to use his high pick to get PM (he couldn't trade down like Ballard was able to).

 

So putting Ballard in Polian's shoes, where he needed to use his high pick on a QB, Ballard would have drafted Sam Darnold.  Not Quentin Nelson, Braden Smith, and Parris Campbell.  So 3 years from now, when all of those players are playing well and Darnold is just so-so, consider how lucky Ballard was by not having to draft a franchise QB after going 3-13 and earning the 3rd pick in the draft.  Don't ignore that fact when forming your viewpoint. 

 

He got three good positional players and two good players beyond a franchise QB out of the shear circumstances he fell into, which also included the fact that 2018 had three or four top QBs.  If there was only 1 or 2 college QBs worthy of a high pick, like most years, he couldn't have made the trade.

 

Ballard has been successful in not wasting his first few picks, and has been successful in trading down to get more.  He traded out of no-mans-land in the bottom of round 1 where Polian tended to stay and make the pick.  I think Ballard's strategy is better than Polian's.

 

Polian began to lose it when he drafted Ugoh, Gonzolez, and D Brown (again, late 1sts).  And Grigson wasted nearly all of his higher picks (again, all late in the round).  I think hitting on good players with 1st and 2nd round picks is not an exceptional thing for a GM.  IMO, it should be expected.   Maybe I'm just a tougher critic.

 

The media kept telling us the Colts had the worst roster in the NFL.  Then Ballard draft's players who stick on our roster.   So is the fact that he has so many draft picks still on the roster a sign of his drafting prowess, or is it a sign the roster was bare to begin with?    If you believe the former, I guess the media narrative about the quality of the Colts roster and the incompetence of Ryan Grigson was wrong.

 

In hindsight, I doubt any team would draft M Hooker with their 15th pick, nor Q Wilson with their 45th pick.  Not that they are bad players, but they were probably over drafted.  We'll see, they may start earning their investment as the rest of the D improves.

 

BTW, not that I'm a superior judge of talent, but making the top under-25 team is not really an empirical fact, its a fact created out of someone's judgment.

[JPFolks]

53 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

Most wins by a QB = Regular Season and Playoffs:

 

Brady 237-70 (6 SB wins)

Peyton 200-92 (2 SB wins)

Favre 199-123 (1 SB win)

Brees 163-115 (1 SB win)

Elway 162-89 (2 SB wins)

 

-Top 5 winners in NFL history, Peyton is 2nd only behind Brady. Only Brady and Peyton are in the 200 win club.

He passed Manning in Regular Season wins in 2017.  And they have now both played the same number of years (each missed a full season, though Brady did play part of one game before getting hurt for the season).  

 

Thanks for posting the numbers 2006.  As much as I hate to admit it, Brady is simply the king.  

[2006Coltsbestever]

13 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

He passed Manning in Regular Season wins in 2017.  And they have now both played the same number of years (each missed a full season, though Brady did play part of one game before getting hurt for the season).  

 

Thanks for posting the numbers 2006.  As much as I hate to admit it, Brady is simply the king.  

2nd isn't bad though. Favre has 199 wins at 3rd, pretty impressive, I honestly didn't realize he was 3rd until I looked it up. I knew Brady and Peyton's wins but after that wasn't sure. One thing Peyton does have is those 5 MVP's, Brady only has 3. 

[JPFolks]

1 minute ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

2nd isn't bad though. Favre has 199 wins at 3rd, pretty impressive, I honestly didn't realize he was 3rd until I looked it up. I knew Brady and Peyton's wins but after that wasn't sure. One thing Peyton does have is those 5 MVP's, Brady only has 3. 

I think Peyton is still ahead in a lot of stats versus Brady (though Brees is going to own most of them in the end outside of the playoff only ones) and he actually won more games head to head in the playoffs than Brady did which most people don't realize.  

 

Manning and his "one better" putting him on top of the records.  His league leading Most Passing yards in a season was 1 single yard more than Drew Brees.   I wonder if someday they will go back over all the film and take 2 yards away somewhere so Manning will come out of retirement for one game to complete a 3 yard pass sort of like that movie Mr. 300.   (pretty funny in it's day). 

[2006Coltsbestever]

3 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

I think Peyton is still ahead in a lot of stats versus Brady (though Brees is going to own most of them in the end outside of the playoff only ones) and he actually won more games head to head in the playoffs than Brady did which most people don't realize.  

 

Manning and his "one better" putting him on top of the records.  His league leading Most Passing yards in a season was 1 single yard more than Drew Brees.   I wonder if someday they will go back over all the film and take 2 yards away somewhere so Manning will come out of retirement for one game to complete a 3 yard pass sort of like that movie Mr. 300.   (pretty funny in it's day). 

Like Mr 3000, that is great stuff. One better over Favre in wins, one better than Brees in Yards for a season. Sounds like Peyton.

[DougDew]

11 hours ago, Scott Pennock said:

You are wrong on every account in your opening thought!

 

Hooker was projected to go HIGHER than 15 and Wilson was rated a borderline 1st Rounder. They were drafted right where they should have been. 

 

Hooker was having an incredible DROY type season until the cheap shot he took against the Jags that cost him the 2nd half of the season. He played solid last year considering he was still healing AND very few teams dared throwing to his side which stats bear that out.

 

Wilson has taken a bit of time to percolate, but, when he has played and started turning it on that lock down corner started to emerge last year and once again the stats are there to prove it.

 

Basham plays for the Jets in their 3-4 defense. Still in the league.

 

Basham played in 9 games as a rookie with the Panthers and is now a Steeler. Still in the league.

 

Hairston had a great rookie season per stats and took a step back last year while a certain Kenny Moore took a monumental leap and TOOK the nickel back spot and never giving Hairston a chance. Hairston may lose out to Collins and/or Rock Ya-Sin this year but he'll be claimed quickly and be a solid contributor elsewhere.

 

Mack is a rotational back? Seriously? Where were you when he finished the season as a top 5 back when was healthy? From like week 6 thru 17? Did we not watch the same games? Sheesh....

 

Grover Stewart has been a solid rotational piece and due an increase in minutes this year as a 4th rounder in 2017 from tiny Albany. Solid pick.

 

Oh, what about our final pick that year? The 5th rounder who is the starting MLB and racked up 100+ tackles last year? He's not too shabby either. Anthony Walker Jr......

 

8 picks.

4 Starters.

2 Depth Players.

2 With other teams.

 

Every one of them still in the league.

 

50% Starters is NOT an ordinary draft.

Double quote:

 

I concede that I haven't followed the other players and didn't realize they were still in the NFL.  I don't know if this fact makes 2017 draft better than ordinary.

 

As far as projections.  I don't understand the idea that a player, in this case Hooker, has an intrinsic value of where the pundits says it is, then the GM who picks the player below where the pundits say means the GM got a steal.  

 

Doesn't the fact that the other 14 GMs who passed on the 15th picked player mean the pundits got it wrong?  Why do you inherently believe its the other 14 GMs who got it wrong when they passed him up?  They obviously saw something that led them to think he wasn't a top ten pick.

 

Again, starters are based upon the quality of the existing roster.  I answered that more deeply in the response to NCF. 

 

 And I'll add, if you're changing schemes and have very few players on the roster who fit the new scheme, it's logical to think that any player added will have a better shot at making the roster regardless of his overall talent level.  I don't see where the amount of draft picks on the current roster, by itself, really supports the idea of exceptional drafting prowess.

[JPFolks]

52 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Double quote:

 

I concede that I haven't followed the other players and didn't realize they were still in the NFL.  I don't know if this fact makes 2017 draft better than ordinary.

 

As far as projections.  I don't understand the idea that a player, in this case Hooker, has an intrinsic value of where the pundits says it is, then the GM who picks the player below where the pundits say means the GM got a steal.  

 

Doesn't the fact that the other 14 GMs who passed on the 15th picked player mean the pundits got it wrong?  Why do you inherently believe its the other 14 GMs who got it wrong when they passed him up?  They obviously saw something that led them to think he wasn't a top ten pick.

 

Again, starters are based upon the quality of the existing roster.  I answered that more deeply in the response to NCF. 

 

 And I'll add, if you're changing schemes and have very few players on the roster who fit the new scheme, it's logical to think that any player added will have a better shot at making the roster regardless of his overall talent level.  I don't see where the amount of draft picks on the current roster, by itself, really supports the idea of exceptional drafting prowess.

I have to hand it to you... this is one solid argument that has me rethinking my opinion on this.  The fact that Ballard has said he only had 1 or 2 players on Defense worthy of being starters when he took over supports your point a great deal.   It is nearly impossible to think his guys would not start in that scenario, regardless of their true value as starters in the league overall.  I hadn't thought of that so I must give you kudos for that argument.  It holds a lot of merit and Ballard essentially did confirm your view.  When you have sub-par starters, replacing them is not that challenging if you draft scheme specific skills you are looking for to start in those slots.  

 

Something I have wondered about is does a GM pick his coaches based on a scheme he would like to see on his team, or does he not care what scheme they will run, he just looks for a great coach? (I am talking coordinators in this case).  With Reich calling the plays, when he came in as a replacement, did they change the offensive schemes at all when they switched from He Who Shall Not Be Name in NE or did they keep the same with both? Is that question making sense? 

[Scott Pennock]

53 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Double quote:

 

I concede that I haven't followed the other players and didn't realize they were still in the NFL.  I don't know if this fact makes 2017 draft better than ordinary.

 

As far as projections.  I don't understand the idea that a player, in this case Hooker, has an intrinsic value of where the pundits says it is, then the GM who picks the player below where the pundits say means the GM got a steal.  

 

Doesn't the fact that the other 14 GMs who passed on the 15th picked player mean the pundits got it wrong?  Why do you inherently believe its the other 14 GMs who got it wrong when they passed him up?  They obviously saw something that led them to think he wasn't a top ten pick.

 

Again, starters are based upon the quality of the existing roster.  I answered that more deeply in the response to NCF. 

 

 And I'll add, if you're changing schemes and have very few players on the roster who fit the new scheme, it's logical to think that any player added will have a better shot at making the roster regardless of his overall talent level.  I don't see where the amount of draft picks on the current roster, by itself, really supports the idea of exceptional drafting prowess.

In that draft Jamal Adams and Hooker were 1a and 1b and Adams was taken by the Jets earlier in round 1.

 

The John Ross to the Bengals and the Tribisky (SP?) To the Bears really shook up the board.

 

So one could look at it as the other 14 teams passed on him or you could look at some of those front offices and question their judgement. Historically speaking, I question the judgement of a lot of front offices. 

 

As long as you're bringing up changing schemes the fact that all of Hooker, Wilson, and Walker are still starters given they were drafted for the 3-4 coach says A LOT about the ACTUAL quality of those players. Hairston and Stewart the same as quality depth.

 

Ballard made no bones in getting rid of players who didn't fit the new 4-3. 

 

Mack is a solid starting running back no matter who the coach is.

[DougDew]

32 minutes ago, JPFolks said:

I have to hand it to you... this is one solid argument that has me rethinking my opinion on this.  The fact that Ballard has said he only had 1 or 2 players on Defense worthy of being starters when he took over supports your point a great deal.   It is nearly impossible to think his guys would not start in that scenario, regardless of their true value as starters in the league overall.  I hadn't thought of that so I must give you kudos for that argument.  It holds a lot of merit and Ballard essentially did confirm your view.  When you have sub-par starters, replacing them is not that challenging if you draft scheme specific skills you are looking for to start in those slots.  

 

Something I have wondered about is does a GM pick his coaches based on a scheme he would like to see on his team, or does he not care what scheme they will run, he just looks for a great coach? (I am talking coordinators in this case).  With Reich calling the plays, when he came in as a replacement, did they change the offensive schemes at all when they switched from He Who Shall Not Be Name in NE or did they keep the same with both? Is that question making sense? 

I have an overall good feeling about the draft picks and that think they are good players, but players picked in rounds 3 and beyond are going to be churned as future players emerge.  The fact that several get significant playing time during this rebuilding period is not really a good measure, IMO. 

 

Besides, the fact that the performance of the team and its W-L record typically rests a lot on how Luck plays makes it that much more difficult to judge how good players drafted past the second round really are.

 

To get back to the topic, Ballard is going to have to accumulate much more success over a period of several up and down cycles before he should be compared to Polian.  But it certainly seems like he might do that if he continues to not waste high draft picks and free agent money on bad players like so many GMs do.

[Superman]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

So is the fact that he has so many draft picks still on the roster a sign of his drafting prowess, or is it a sign the roster was bare to begin with? 

 

Both?

 

Quote

In hindsight, I doubt any team would draft M Hooker with their 15th pick, nor Q Wilson with their 45th pick. 

 

You can fix any decision in hindsight. Fact of the matter is that is nonsensical to claim that Hooker was overdrafted.

[DougDew]

29 minutes ago, Scott Pennock said:

In that draft Jamal Adams and Hooker were 1a and 1b and Adams was taken by the Jets earlier in round 1.

 

The John Ross to the Bengals and the Tribisky (SP?) To the Bears really shook up the board.

 

So one could look at it as the other 14 teams passed on him or you could look at some of those front offices and question their judgement. Historically speaking, I question the judgement of a lot of front offices. 

 

As long as you're bringing up changing schemes the fact that all of Hooker, Wilson, and Walker are still starters given they were drafted for the 3-4 coach says A LOT about the ACTUAL quality of those players. Hairston and Stewart the same as quality depth.

 

Ballard made no bones in getting rid of players who didn't fit the new 4-3. 

 

Mack is a solid starting running back no matter who the coach is.

Yeah, I don't want to get hung up on Hooker's draft value in this thread.  Generally speaking, I think a player's value gets determined during the draft more so than before the draft.

 

Hooker and Wilson were drafted pretty high, and should be able to play well in different schemes.  If they were strictly scheme specific players, I think they would have been drafted lower.  Frankly, I don't think either has played "well" on a consistent basis, although Hooker has shown flashes.

 

I think Mack is a solid rotational RB and was drafted in the 4th round accordingly, consistent with Ballard's (apparent) philosophy about RBs.  He's not Saquon Barkley, obviously, or even a Joe Mixon, Kareem Hunt, Alvin Kamara, or even a Vic Ballard.  JMO.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Both?

 

 

You can fix any decision in hindsight. Fact of the matter is that is nonsensical to claim that Hooker was overdrafted.

You may disagree, but its not nonsensical.  And I said "probably".

 

If we were going to play a zone 4-3, and not have the pieces in place to play it correctly for a few years, I don't know if we draft a cover-1 FS at 15 in 2017, even if he was BP.  Maybe Balt picks him with the next pick at 16, but they had the defense for him.

[Superman]

Just now, DougDew said:

You may disagree, but its not nonsensical.  And I said "probably".

 

If we were going to play a zone 4-3, and not have the pieces in place to play it correctly for a few years, I don't know if we draft a cover-1 FS at 15 in 2017, even if he was BP.  Maybe Balt picks him with the next pick at 16, but they had the defense for him.

 

No, it's nonsensical. When there's a strong consensus that a player is top ten in a draft, and he gets taken at #15, he wasn't overdrafted. You may think he's not living up to his draft status (which can't legitimately be determined at this point, IMO), but that doesn't mean he was overdrafted. 

 

And the second paragraph here is just a reflection of your narrow viewpoint regarding FS in this defense. There's nothing wrong with taking a FS high for this defense, it's no worse than the third most important position in the defense.

[throwing BBZ]

24 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, I don't want to get hung up on Hooker's draft value in this thread.  Generally speaking, I think a player's value gets determined during the draft more so than before the draft.

 

Hooker and Wilson were drafted pretty high, and should be able to play well in different schemes.  If they were strictly scheme specific players, I think they would have been drafted lower.  Frankly, I don't think either has played "well" on a consistent basis, although Hooker has shown flashes.

 

I think Mack is a solid rotational RB and was drafted in the 4th round accordingly, consistent with Ballard's (apparent) philosophy about RBs.  He's not Saquon Barkley, obviously, or even a Joe Mixon, Kareem Hunt, Alvin Kamara, or even a Vic Ballard.  JMO.

 

 And Hooker was the TOP player on Ballard's draft board. THAT was his Value.
 Vic Ballard had a lot of promise as a Rotational piece. JMO that you have a severe bias for some reason about Mack. He may have a shade less power than Ballard but showed more speed and quick change of direction than Ballard was ever going to have.
 Mack definitely looked like a high quality Feature back coming down the stretch.
 

 Funny that some people still don't get that Ballard was drafting for the 4-3 his FIRST draft.
 

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

No, it's nonsensical. When there's a strong consensus that a player is top ten in a draft, and he gets taken at #15, he wasn't overdrafted. You may think he's not living up to his draft status (which can't legitimately be determined at this point, IMO), but that doesn't mean he was overdrafted. 

 

And the second paragraph here is just a reflection of your narrow viewpoint regarding FS in this defense. There's nothing wrong with taking a FS high for this defense, it's no worse than the third most important position in the defense.

Consensus is just a collection of opinions.  More opinions don't make them better.  My opinion on draft day, and now, is that he was over drafted.  

 

Its more than his play.  Hooker's write up said he was an elite ball hawk, but only had "potential" to be an elite tackler, elite coverage guy, with signs of less than elite durability/longevity.  And he played with studs in the secondary. Never sounded like the 15th BP to me, let alone top ten, so I never bought the consensus.  If the consensus loved his potential, so be it.  The consensus was probably formed by a bunch of Ohio State/Urban Meyer fans at ESPN, lol.

 

Narrow viewpoint?  If he's not elite in the many things a FS is asked to do, then an elite draft position isn't validated.   At least that's how I look at top 20 picks.   

 

Maybe I' a tough critic. And its probably reflected in the fact that I always prefer to trade down, since I hardly ever think mid round 1 picks live up to their potential of being better than two top 50 picks.

[DougDew]

25 minutes ago, throwing BBZ said:

 

 And Hooker was the TOP player on Ballard's draft board. THAT was his Value.
 Vic Ballard had a lot of promise as a Rotational piece. JMO that you have a severe bias for some reason about Mack. He may have a shade less power than Ballard but showed more speed and quick change of direction than Ballard was ever going to have.
 Mack definitely looked like a high quality Feature back coming down the stretch.
 

 Funny that some people still don't get that Ballard was drafting for the 4-3 his FIRST draft.
 

I think people readily questioned Polian's draft board, so why would being ranked highly on a GMs draft board prevent questioning?  

 

Not thinking Mack is an NFL starter/feature back is not anti-Mack bias.  Mack is fine for this offense.  Mid round picks like Hunt or Kamara would probably have been better.  First round pick like McCaffrey would have been better.  So Mack was drafted at about right place for what he is, IMO. 

[CaptainColt12]

12 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

To answer the Op's question, he could but way too early to tell. That is like saying can Luck be as great as Manning was? Ballard and Luck both need to win at least 1 SB and a lot of games over the next 5 years to match those two guys.

I know, but I just wanted to see everyone's thoughts on CB's future 

[shasta519]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Relative to Polian, which is the topic of the thread, Ballard benefited from already having his franchise QB on the roster.  Polian had to use his high pick to get PM (he couldn't trade down like Ballard was able to).

 

So putting Ballard in Polian's shoes, where he needed to use his high pick on a QB, Ballard would have drafted Sam Darnold.  Not Quentin Nelson, Braden Smith, and Parris Campbell.  So 3 years from now, when all of those players are playing well and Darnold is just so-so, consider how lucky Ballard was by not having to draft a franchise QB after going 3-13 and earning the 3rd pick in the draft.  Don't ignore that fact when forming your viewpoint. 

 

He got three good positional players and two good players beyond a franchise QB out of the shear circumstances he fell into, which also included the fact that 2018 had three or four top QBs.  If there was only 1 or 2 college QBs worthy of a high pick, like most years, he couldn't have made the trade.

 

Ballard has been successful in not wasting his first few picks, and has been successful in trading down to get more.  He traded out of no-mans-land in the bottom of round 1 where Polian tended to stay and make the pick.  I think Ballard's strategy is better than Polian's.

 

Polian began to lose it when he drafted Ugoh, Gonzolez, and D Brown (again, late 1sts).  And Grigson wasted nearly all of his higher picks (again, all late in the round).  I think hitting on good players with 1st and 2nd round picks is not an exceptional thing for a GM.  IMO, it should be expected.   Maybe I'm just a tougher critic.

 

The media kept telling us the Colts had the worst roster in the NFL.  Then Ballard draft's players who stick on our roster.   So is the fact that he has so many draft picks still on the roster a sign of his drafting prowess, or is it a sign the roster was bare to begin with?    If you believe the former, I guess the media narrative about the quality of the Colts roster and the incompetence of Ryan Grigson was wrong.

 

In hindsight, I doubt any team would draft M Hooker with their 15th pick, nor Q Wilson with their 45th pick.  Not that they are bad players, but they were probably over drafted.  We'll see, they may start earning their investment as the rest of the D improves.

 

BTW, not that I'm a superior judge of talent, but making the top under-25 team is not really an empirical fact, its a fact created out of someone's judgment.

 

This is a fair argument. And I will even use it to "defend" Grigs a bit (as dirty as that feels).

 

Yes, Ballard was handed a poor roster overall...but he had the franchise QB. This allowed him the flexibility to add impact talent at other positions...and also leverage that top 3 pick into a top 6 pick AND multiple additional 2nd round picks.

 

Grigs had a top 3 pick as well...but it went to a QB. If they had kept Manning (or had another QB in place)...one can only imagine what even half of that trade back haul would have looked like. Grigs wasn't good at drafting...but the playing field would have been a bit more even and he would have had a lot more cracks at it.

 

And Grigs' teams did go 11-5 those first 3 years.

 

Ballard is much better than Grigs...I just think there is definitely context to their situations. I am more excited than I was even before the 2013 offseasons...but comparisons to Polian are way premature...though the Colts are certainly heading in the right direction.

[DougDew]

39 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

This is a fair argument. And I will even use it to "defend" Grigs a bit (as dirty as that feels).

 

Yes, Ballard was handed a poor roster overall...but he had the franchise QB. This allowed him the flexibility to add impact talent at other positions...and also leverage that top 3 pick into a top 6 pick AND multiple additional 2nd round picks.

 

Grigs had a top 3 pick as well...but it went to a QB. If they had kept Manning (or had another QB in place)...one can only imagine what even half of that trade back haul would have looked like. Grigs wasn't good at drafting...but the playing field would have been a bit more even and he would have had a lot more cracks at it.

 

And Grigs' teams did go 11-5 those first 3 years.

 

Ballard is much better than Grigs...I just think there is definitely context to their situations. I am more excited than I was even before the 2013 offseasons...but comparisons to Polian are way premature...though the Colts are certainly heading in the right direction.

If you look at Colts GMs going back to Bill Tobin, I think they all tended to do better when they were drafting higher in each round.

 

Go Figure.

 

Polian did well for so many years drafting near the bottom of round 1.  But it caught up with him and eventually he just couldn't restock the shelves with enough good players.   Marvin Harrison and Tarik Glenn were drafted mid first round by Tobin, and they played at a high level for years.   That's a #1 WR and LT that Polian never had to try to find with a low draft pick.  That circumstance that Tobin left Polian helped Polian's legacy too.

 

I don't think there is any question that Polian's last few years were managed with the idea of giving it one last shot with PM (until PM got hurt).  Despite denials of a closing window, Polian resigned a lot of our starters to terrible contracts hoping to not have to rebuild in the near term.  Consequently, I think he left his successor with the most bare cupboard than any of our GMs, outside of a young Jimmy Irsay.

 

I always thought Bill Tobin was underrated.  He's the guy who really turned the franchise around; from always nothing to almost a perennial playoff team within just a few years.  He signed a lot of good vet free agents.  Probably better at it than any of our GMs.  And got rid of Jeffy George.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Consensus is just a collection of opinions.  More opinions don't make them better.  My opinion on draft day, and now, is that he was over drafted.  

 

Its more than his play.  Hooker's write up said he was an elite ball hawk, but only had "potential" to be an elite tackler, elite coverage guy, with signs of less than elite durability/longevity.  And he played with studs in the secondary. Never sounded like the 15th BP to me, let alone top ten, so I never bought the consensus.  If the consensus loved his potential, so be it.  The consensus was probably formed by a bunch of Ohio State/Urban Meyer fans at ESPN, lol.

 

Narrow viewpoint?  If he's not elite in the many things a FS is asked to do, then an elite draft position isn't validated.   At least that's how I look at top 20 picks.   

 

Maybe I' a tough critic. And its probably reflected in the fact that I always prefer to trade down, since I hardly ever think mid round 1 picks live up to their potential of being better than two top 50 picks.

 

Draft projection is based on where players are expected to be drafted, and that expectation is formed by consensus, influenced by information.

 

If you said "IMO, Hooker shouldn't have been drafted in the top 15," you'd get little to no argument. You said he was overdrafted, as if picking him at #15 was a draft reach, and there's no evidence to support that position. 

 

As for Hooker's ability on the field, I get the feeling you didn't watch him. You read some articles, formed an opinion, and staked a position. And even based on your collection of information -- whatever that included -- the only real knock against him is his tackling. He was an elite FS prospect, and that showed on film.

 

Again, if you said you didn't value Hooker because he's not a great tackler and he was coming off an injury (knocking him for an ACL tear is silly; tearing a major ligament isn't evidence of a lack of durability, it's a matter of circumstance), you'd get little to no argument. You're acting like your opinion is fact, and in reality, your opinion is flawed. A rangy, ball hawking FS is always going to be valued in the draft.

 

By the way, your previous angle was that he didn't make sense for the defense. Now you're arguing that he was flawed as a prospect. You're moving the goal posts. That's not being a tough critic, it's being disingenuous. 

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

Draft projection is based on where players are expected to be drafted, and that expectation is formed by consensus, influenced by information.

 

If you said "IMO, Hooker shouldn't have been drafted in the top 15," you'd get little to no argument. You said he was overdrafted, as if picking him at #15 was a draft reach, and there's no evidence to support that position. 

 

As for Hooker's ability on the field, I get the feeling you didn't watch him. You read some articles, formed an opinion, and staked a position. And even based on your collection of information -- whatever that included -- the only real knock against him is his tackling. He was an elite FS prospect, and that showed on film.

 

Again, if you said you didn't value Hooker because he's not a great tackler and he was coming off an injury (knocking him for an ACL tear is silly; tearing a major ligament isn't evidence of a lack of durability, it's a matter of circumstance), you'd get little to no argument. You're acting like your opinion is fact, and in reality, your opinion is flawed. A rangy, ball hawking FS is always going to be valued in the draft.

 

By the way, your previous angle was that he didn't make sense for the defense. Now you're arguing that he was flawed as a prospect. That's not being a tough critic, it's being disingenuous. 

Most things are opinion.  Not much is fact.  If you gather enough facts to where something is not an opinion, it becomes proof.  No smart person waits that long before making a decision.

 

In addition to having elite deep ball instincts and the speed to get there, Hooker's pre-draft analysis said that he lacked experience as a starting FS at OSU, and even took up the game late compared to most NFL caliber players.  Because of this, his tackling needed work, he was not a guy you'd put into man coverage (although he displayed athleticism for it) and he had several injuries, albeit none severe.  (meaning that he hadn't displayed a resume of being able to handle the punishment of football, like other players who may have taken up the game earlier in their life). Not to mention, he benefited from strong corner play at OSU.

 

I don't know why you're bringing up an ACL tear, that was his rookie NFL year. 

 

I'm not stating these are facts.  I'm stating this is what the professional pundits wrote.  Based on that, he didn't read like a top 10 prospect to me at the time.  And compared to other write ups of other prospects (like Derwin James or Minkah Fitzpatrick) the next year, his write up doesn't compare.  Whether or not these are accurate write-ups, IDK.

 

Sounds to me the appropriate defense is cover 1, and that's where his elite pick 15 traits might be displayed.  I assume he can adjust to play in other defenses, but then he might play only like pick 35.

 

What in your mind is the significant difference between "wouldn't have drafted him at 15" and being "over drafted at 15"?  Both obviously JMO.

[Superman]

37 minutes ago, DougDew said:

What in your mind is the significant difference between "wouldn't have drafted him at 15" and being "over drafted at 15"?  Both obviously JMO.

 

"He was overdrafted" isn't stated as opinion. And you have to understand that there's a typical inference when someone says 'Player X was overdrafted;' most people take that to mean that the player was projected to go later in the draft. That comes across differently than saying 'I don't think he should have been drafted where he was.' 

 

Quote

I'm not stating these are facts.  I'm stating this is what the professional pundits wrote.  Based on that, he didn't read like a top 10 prospect to me at the time.  And compared to other write ups of other prospects (like Derwin James or Minkah Fitzpatrick) the next year, his write up doesn't compare.  Whether or not these are accurate write-ups, IDK.

 

So your opinion of Hooker as a prospect is a conglomeration of what a bunch of other people said about him (by the way, those same people in general helped form the consensus that he would be drafted near the top of the first round). My opinion of Hooker is primarily based on how he played and the traits he showed. And I am not an Ohio State fanboy, just someone who watched Hooker player and saw elite traits on the field. The idea that he would not be worthy of a top 15 pick does not make sense, based on what I saw from him in one year in college.

 

The possibility did exist that he'd go later in the first round, but that was based on questions about his recovery from injury -- he had a sports hernia and a torn labrum at Ohio State, and couldn't work out during draft season. Not based on his play, or his value to a defense.

 

Not sure why you'd compare him to James or Fitzpatrick, who are totally different players. James is a multi-use, multi-position defender who literally played snaps at five positions last year, including edge (not just blitzing off the edge, he actually played on the edge almost the entire game against Seattle, and actually played with his hand in the dirt at times in college, even meeting with the DL during the week). Fitzpatrick is a hybrid DB himself. Hooker is a FS with some man ability, but predominantly a FS. 

 

Quote

Sounds to me the appropriate defense is cover 1, and that's where his elite pick 15 traits might be displayed.  I assume he can adjust to play in other defenses, but then he might play only like pick 35.

 

I again disagree. First, no team runs two deep 100% of the time anymore, so it's not like he's just splitting the field and taking one deep half. If that were the case, his range wouldn't be as valuable.

 

Second, the Colts are apparently intending to run multiple coverages, including Cover 1, Cover 3, etc., where a rangy single high safety is even more valuable than I stated earlier.

[Myles]

6 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Again, starters are based upon the quality of the existing roster.  I answered that more deeply in the response to NCF. 

 

 And I'll add, if you're changing schemes and have very few players on the roster who fit the new scheme, it's logical to think that any player added will have a better shot at making the roster regardless of his overall talent level.  I don't see where the amount of draft picks on the current roster, by itself, really supports the idea of exceptional drafting prowess.

Bunded up with the improved play, it certainly leads to Ballard drafting well.   The O-line was leaps and bounds better than Grigson had it.   That is totally thanks to Ballards drafting.   Same with the LB's.   

[Peterk2011]

On 6/3/2019 at 9:32 PM, DougDew said:

A few thoughts:

 

Ballard's first draft, 2017, was ordinary.  Hooker and Wilson were probably over drafted. Basham, Banner, and maybe (soon) Hairston are out of the NFL  Mack is a rotational RB.

 

Leonard and Nelson are the only players who could start for a lot of other teams.   All other players drafted who have made the Colts roster, in part, have done so because it is/was a weak roster as much due to their own talent. 

 

Realistically, that's two players in two drafts, and both of them both very high to pretty high picks, #6 and #36, so its not like he found two players with a scarcity of capital.

 

I wouldn't consider anything about Ballard's first two drafts to be exceptional.  He has probably maximized his capital very well, considering he has traded well (and benefited from/ took advantage of a QB heavy 2018 draft)

 

If you can't argue with something, deny it entirely. Make people have to debate about every word of yours. They'll probably won't, because it doesn't worth the effort. 

 

Good tactic.

[Coffeedrinker]

 

 

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

Yeah, I don't want to get hung up on Hooker's draft value in this thread.  Generally speaking, I think a player's value gets determined during the draft more so than before the draft.

If that is the case then since Hooker was drafted at 15, then he was drafted right where he should have been drafted.  Why do you assume Ballard was wrong and all the other GMs were correct?

 

 

 

2

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

Hooker and Wilson were drafted pretty high, and should be able to play well in different schemes.  If they were strictly scheme specific players, I think they would have been drafted lower.  Frankly, I don't think either has played "well" on a consistent basis, although Hooker has shown flashes.

 

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

 

I think Mack is a solid rotational RB and was drafted in the 4th round accordingly, consistent with Ballard's (apparent) philosophy about RBs.  He's not Saquon Barkley, obviously, or even a Joe Mixon, Kareem Hunt, Alvin Kamara, or even a Vic Ballard.  JMO.

I disagree, I think Mack is right there with Mixon and Kamara, not quite a Hunt or Barkley.  But he is a level or two better than Vic.  I was a fan of, he seemed to have the tools to turn into a good between the tackles runner, but he was nowhere near the complete RB that Mack has already proven to be.   But I do think that Mack would start for a lot of teams in the NFL and if he were in a system that wanted to give a single RB 18-22 carries consistently, he would be a 1350-1500 yard rusher.

[DougDew]

5 hours ago, Peterk2011 said:

 

If you can't argue with something, deny it entirely. Make people have to debate about every word of yours. They'll probably won't, because it doesn't worth the effort. 

 

Good tactic.

Who's the person doing the arguing?  I expressed a few thoughts.  Then others argued my thoughts.

 

Since that was my first post in this thread, exactly how did I "make" people debate anything?

 

If you don't like what somebody said, pretend he said something else.  Good tactic.

 

    

[DougDew]

6 hours ago, Superman said:

 

"He was overdrafted" isn't stated as opinion. And you have to understand that there's a typical inference when someone says 'Player X was overdrafted;' most people take that to mean that the player was projected to go later in the draft. That comes across differently than saying 'I don't think he should have been drafted where he was.' 

 

 

So your opinion of Hooker as a prospect is a conglomeration of what a bunch of other people said about him (by the way, those same people in general helped form the consensus that he would be drafted near the top of the first round). My opinion of Hooker is primarily based on how he played and the traits he showed. And I am not an Ohio State fanboy, just someone who watched Hooker player and saw elite traits on the field. The idea that he would not be worthy of a top 15 pick does not make sense, based on what I saw from him in one year in college.

 

The possibility did exist that he'd go later in the first round, but that was based on questions about his recovery from injury -- he had a sports hernia and a torn labrum at Ohio State, and couldn't work out during draft season. Not based on his play, or his value to a defense.

 

Not sure why you'd compare him to James or Fitzpatrick, who are totally different players. James is a multi-use, multi-position defender who literally played snaps at five positions last year, including edge (not just blitzing off the edge, he actually played on the edge almost the entire game against Seattle, and actually played with his hand in the dirt at times in college, even meeting with the DL during the week). Fitzpatrick is a hybrid DB himself. Hooker is a FS with some man ability, but predominantly a FS. 

 

 

I again disagree. First, no team runs two deep 100% of the time anymore, so it's not like he's just splitting the field and taking one deep half. If that were the case, his range wouldn't be as valuable.

 

Second, the Colts are apparently intending to run multiple coverages, including Cover 1, Cover 3, etc., where a rangy single high safety is even more valuable than I stated earlier.

My apologies for not understanding how certain circles use the term overdrafted.  I was merely expressing my opinion that I don't think his write ups warranted a top ten pick, (other players warrant such status regardless of position) and I don't think he has lived up to his drafted position yet.  I said yet.  So I'm not going to think of Ballard's 2017 draft as anything other than ordinary yet, which was the context of my first post in this thread where the topic is an early comparison to Polian. 

 

I don't really care enough about Hooker to argue the fine nuances of whether he should have been top 10, 15, 25, or 42.  He's fine and I'm pretty meh about him. 

 

 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, DougDew said:

My apologies for not understanding how certain circles use the term overdrafted.  I was merely expressing my opinion that I don't think his write ups warranted a top ten pick, (other players warrant such status regardless of position) and I don't think he has lived up to his drafted position yet.  I said yet.  So I'm not going to think of Ballard's 2017 draft as anything other than ordinary yet, which was the context of my first post in this thread where the topic is an early comparison to Polian. 

 

I don't really care enough about Hooker to argue the fine nuances of whether he should have been top 10, 15, 25, or 42.  He's fine and I'm pretty meh about him. 

 

You don't have to apologize. I just wanted to point out why your comment got the reaction it did. 

 

I do think the 2017 draft was ordinary, but I don't have any complaints about the Hooker pick. Wilson has been inconsistent, I agree with you that Walker and Hairston got the kind of opportunities they did primarily because the roster was bad (and it was very bad, mostly due to poor drafting from Grigson), but I don't agree that they aren't good picks, especially given where they were taken. Still, nothing outstanding about either of them, just solid picks. Banner was a bad pick, I don't know what happened with Basham but I think we gave up on him too early, and Stewart is just a guy. You're definitely selling Mack and Hooker short, IMO.

 

And I think you're being withholding on the 2018 class. Lots of teams pick at the top of the draft, some do it practically every year, but no team has picked two All Pros in one draft since the Bears did it fifty years ago. It was a foundational draft, with the potential to be transformational, just on the basis of those two picks. I think it's too early to talk about this draft class, but it looks like it might be special, in a historic sense.

 

Overall, it's far too early to compare a guy with three draft classes (and the third hasn't even played yet) to a guy who drafted for three teams over the course of two-plus decades. But that doesn't mean Ballard hasn't done a good job so far.

[DougDew]

7 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

You don't have to apologize. I just wanted to point out why your comment got the reaction it did. 

 

I do think the 2017 draft was ordinary, but I don't have any complaints about the Hooker pick. Wilson has been inconsistent, I agree with you that Walker and Hairston got the kind of opportunities they did primarily because the roster was bad (and it was very bad, mostly due to poor drafting from Grigson), but I don't agree that they aren't good picks, especially given where they were taken. Still, nothing outstanding about either of them, just solid picks. Banner was a bad pick, I don't know what happened with Basham but I think we gave up on him too early, and Stewart is just a guy. You're definitely selling Mack and Hooker short, IMO.

 

And I think you're being withholding on the 2018 class. Lots of teams pick at the top of the draft, some do it practically every year, but no team has picked two All Pros in one draft since the Bears did it fifty years ago. It was a foundational draft, with the potential to be transformational, just on the basis of those two picks. I think it's too early to talk about this draft class, but it looks like it might be special, in a historic sense.

 

Overall, it's far too early to compare a guy with three draft classes (and the third hasn't even played yet) to a guy who drafted for three teams over the course of two-plus decades. But that doesn't mean Ballard hasn't done a good job so far.

Sure, the concept of extrapolating Ballard into the next Polian is way premature. 

 

Overall, I liked the 2017 draft very much at the time, and Wilson and Basham were my two favorite picks.  I thought Walker and Hairston were extremely good value, offsetting the previously discussed over pricing of Hooker.  I flat out thought Banner was bad when it was made.  In hindsight, my draft day judgment was way off compared to what I think of that draft now.  

 

My overall thought in this thread about comparing CB to other Colts GMs this early is; I think we need to consider that CB benefited from having a franchise QB already on the roster on day one he started...which is a rarity for almost any NFL GM.. which allowed him to spend capital in other ways, even getting more capital.  Grigs, Polian, and even Bill Tobin (who traded Jeff George almost immediately) had to spend the capital early in their tenure to get one.  (IIRC, Tobin signed Harbaugh to back up Craig Erickson, whom he traded a high second round pick for.  Harbaugh excelled to that status for a time as we all know)

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, DougDew said:

My overall thought in this thread about comparing CB to other Colts GMs this early is; I think we need to consider that CB benefited from having a franchise QB already on the roster on day one he started...which is a rarity for almost any NFL GM.. which allowed him to spend capital in other ways, even getting more capital.  Grigs, Polian, and even Bill Tobin (who traded Jeff George almost immediately) had to spend the capital early in their tenure to get one.  (IIRC, Tobin signed Harbaugh to back up Craig Erickson, whom he traded a high second round pick for.  Harbaugh excelled to that status for a time as we all know)

 

That's a legitimate point, but if we're talking about the legacy of a GM -- which we can't really talk about with Ballard yet -- we have to acknowledge that building a roster is about a lot more than just drafting a QB. Grigson showed that; he got the QB right, it was everything else that he struggled with. 

 

Polian didn't draft a QB high in Buffalo; they already had Jim Kelly. But with or without a QB, he had to do the rest of the work to build a SB caliber roster, which he did. My point is that even if you have a QB, you still have to build the rest of the roster.

 

And right now in the NFL, there's a QB renaissance, for a variety of reasons. So it's not like Ballard absolutely would have been forced to spend a high pick on a QB. He traded for Brissett, who has limitations, but I believe he would be an average to above average starting QB with the right coaching. He could have jumped in on the Alex Smith trade; it cost WAS a decent young corner and a third, plus a fat contract, but without Luck on the books maybe Ballard spends that kind of money for a QB he knew already. He could have moved up a few spots for Watson or Mahomes in 2017. There's Case Keenum, and Nick Foles, etc. This year, Drew Lock and Will Grier are very talented QB prospects that went in the second and third rounds; we'll see what becomes of them. I don't know what Ballard would have done if Luck weren't already here, I'm just pointing out that acquiring a good QB doesn't necessarily mean using a top pick. 

 

Having a hole at QB probably would have cost the Colts one of Nelson or Leonard, but if you hit on the QB, you're replacing one impact draft pick with another. 

 

End of the day, I'll be looking at Ballard's total body of work, not just whether he hits on a few draft picks here and there.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

14 hours ago, DougDew said:

I was merely expressing my opinion that I don't think his write ups warranted a top ten pick

 

It sounds like you don't really watch the players' film.  You just go off stat-lines and other peoples' write-ups.

 

You've repeatedly admitted as much when talking about Hooker.

 

No offense, but it's hard to take your opinion seriously when you're just regurgitating stat-lines and other peoples' opinions instead of using your own two eyeballs.

[Lucky Colts Fan]

On 6/3/2019 at 11:16 AM, CR91 said:

BB is considered the best when it comes to the draft

 

I have to disagree.  I don't think he's all that great at drafting.

 

He is really good at trading draft picks for vets that fit his system, though.

 

And he always seems to accumulate those compensatory picks.

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

It sounds like you don't really watch the players' film.  You just go off stat-lines and other peoples' write-ups.

 

You've repeatedly admitted as much when talking about Hooker.

 

No offense, but it's hard to take your opinion seriously when you're just regurgitating stat-lines and other peoples' opinions instead of using your own two eyeballs.

If you've followed my comments over the course of time in this forum (I know you've quoted me a lot), you should realize that quoting stats is not my thing.

 

I don't watch pre-draft tape of a bunch of potential draft picks.  I assume that the draft sights I read employ NFL-scout types that are much more competent at dissecting film than I am.  I don't have that big of an ego to where I feel I have to challenge the professionals who have actual credentials.  I read and accumulate and form opinions from that, and sometimes the comments from analysts don't seem consistent with their ratings.

 

I tend to not care about looking at hindsight to validate previous opinions.  I talk about the opinion I had at the time, and the opinion I have now.  Often times they are not the same.

 

If I used my own two eyeballs to validate or form an opinion this past season about Hooker, it would be a total failure because he rarely showed up on the screen until two seconds after the play was over, if then.  So, IMO, he's fine and I'm meh about him.

[des717]

I get so frustrated at Ballard sitting back and passing on so many FAs when we have so much cap space. I am still giving him the benefit of the doubt, and I support building through draft, but we COULD have used McCoy for what the Panthers are paying. Basically nothing. Ballard better be right and the D had better be improved, or I am going to struggle at supporting him. And yes, I am a season tix holder for YEARS. But I am not convinced that Ballard is as good as everyone thinks. Time will tell. Yes, he had a good year last year, but Grigson had a good first year before he blew up!!! The jury is out...

[CR91]

1 hour ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

I have to disagree.  I don't think he's all that great at drafting.

 

He is really good at trading draft picks for vets that fit his system, though.

 

And he always seems to accumulate those compensatory picks.

 

Im not arguing he is. Im saying that is the consensus and im saying he isnt.